Bastrop binds himself to settle the five hundred families in three years, and the Governor especially declares that if within that time the major part of the establishment shall not have been made good, the _twelve leagues square_, destined for Bastrop's settlers, shall be occupied by the families first presenting themselves for that purpose. Bastrop brings on some settlers,--how many does not appear, and the Intendant, from a want of funds, suspends further proceeding in the settlement until the King's decision. [His decision of what? Doubtless whether the settlement shall proceed on these terms, and the funds be furnished by the king? or shall be abandoned?] He promises Bastrop, at the same time, that the former limitation of three years shall be extended to two years, after the course of the contract shall have again commenced to be executed, and the determination of the King shall be made known to Bastrop. Here, then, is a complete suspension of the undertaking until the King's decision, and his silence from that time till, and when, he ceded the province, must be considered as an abandonment of the project. There are several circumstances in this case offering ground for question, whether Bastrop is entitled to any surplus of the lands. But this will be an investigation for the Attorney General. But the uttermost he can claim is a surplus proportioned to the number of families he settled, that is to say, a quota of land bearing such a proportion to the number of families he settled, (deducting four hundred arpens for each of them,) as one hundred and forty-four square leagues bear to the whole number of five hundred families. The important fact therefore to be settled, is the number of families he established there before the suspension. The Marquis du Maison Rouge (under whom Mr. Clarke claims) was to have thirty square leagues on the Washita, for settling thirty families, none of them to be Americans. The lands were located and appropriated under the terms and conditions stipulated and contracted for by the said Marquis. What these were we are not told. The grantee must prove his grant by producing it. That will prove what the conditions were, and then he must prove these conditions performed. Livingston's argument does not establish the fact that the lands between the staked line and the river, (if they belonged to the Jesuits,) were conveyed to Gravier. It is impossible to consider the indulgence to the Apelousas as anything more than a _voluntary_ permission from the government to use the timber on the ungranted lands, until they should be granted to others. It could never be intended to keep that country forever unsettled, as appears by expressly reserving the right of soil. But I think we should continue the permission until we sell the lands.